Anyone that has a vehicle, knows the sound of their vehicle when it's idling because we hear it so frequently. I would venture to bet that everyone would be able to pick out the sound of their vehicle when juxtaposed to another, regardless of the environment.

That comparison is quite pointless, similar to comparing a cello to a violin.

Your car's engine is an instrument. It has its own tone. It's not trying to be neutral, transparent, colorless, etc, like good speakers are designed to be.

Peter, that was simply a hypothetical to illustrate my question of whether or not our brain can become trained to a specific sound, based on what I mentioned in the rest of my post.

Originally Posted By: pmbuko

The real question is would you be able to consistently pick out a particular speaker over other "similarly good" speakers playing a recording of your vehicle's idling sound?

Musica. A sound of distinct pitch, quality, and duration; a note.b. The interval of a major second in the diatonic scale; a whole step.c. A recitational melody in a Gregorian chant.2.a. The quality or character of sound.b. The characteristic quality or timbre of a particular instrument or voice.

Most definitely they do.

I can tell when I am listening to a Bose speaker, boomy bass, lack of detail in highs. Klipsch speakers tend to have a very bright in your face sound. Cerwin Vegas have a very bassy sound.

IF you work for a speaker company you can most definitely recognize the "tone" of the speakers you build/sell even if you are blindfolded.

But not obvious when compared to companies which use the same design philosophy such as Axiom, Paradigm, PSB, B&W ect. Sure you can make references to obvious choices like Bose, Klipsh ect...but compare speakers who's engineers have the same design goal(which should be a flat freq response through it's range). I also took part in the M3/B&W test and thought I was listening to two different Axiom speakers. The point is, for two sonically close speakers, do you want to pay $350 or $2500? regardless of the outcome of the test, that to me was the main revelation of the test. You can keep going on about the problems associated with testing speakers, but the simple fact is, the greatest biases are the appearance and price which is why that shuld be eliminated. Blind testing may not be the perfect system, but it's superior to sighted tests as shown by the heavy hitters who support it. If you you read the posts below the link Jay provided, you'll see some very strong professional rebuttals that are more interesting than the blog(imo). When I buy speakers, I listen with my ears, not my eyes. When I buy paint for my kitchen, I use my eyes, and don't tap the can to see what it sounds like.Getting back to the M3/B&W comparison. The M3, though an Axiom speaker, is known to have somewhat different characteristics than the rest of Axioms speakers and most of the people involved in the test had never heard an M3 before, nor had most heard the B&W if any. So to imply that we "knew" which was the Axiom because we own M80s or M60s or whatever, is just heresay. Some speakers are easy to tell the difference sonically like the ones you mentioned, but most would be hard pressed when comparing similarly designed ones.

_________________________
Half of communication is listening. You can't listen with your mouth.

but compare speakers who's engineers have the same design goal(which should be a flat freq response through it's range).

That was what I ment way back in the thread when I said similar sound.

I know if I were to blind test Paradigm Studio 100's, Monitor Audio Gold's and M80s I am pretty sure I wouldn't know which is which, especially through an entire listening session including various types of music as each would excell at some and not with others. Blind testing can allow for a more bias free approach to speaker comparisons, it isn't perfect but the best one can do, IMO.

There seem to be two or three different questions being discussed here, making it difficult for the discussion to make progress).

One question is "are people who spend a lot of time with a particular brand of speaker able to recognize the sound of their brand in a double-blind test ?". The answers to this question seem to lean towards "yes".

Another unspoken question is "would people who recognize their brand of speaker consciously or unconsciously choose it over an otherwise better speaker in a double-blind test, out of loyalty to the product they own or the company they work for ?". Based on the people I have met in this business over the last decade or so, the answer is a pretty emphatic "no".

The third, and most difficult question is "does exposure to a specific brand/sound of speaker for a long period of time colour your preferences, so that your preference between speakers is biased towards the sound you are most familiar with ?". Studies seem to suggest "no" but I haven't actually seen any studies whose focus is that specific question, so I guess it remains a job for the Mythbusters (or is this where JohnK steps in with a link ?).

I remember once, long before I was interested in good audio systems, going into a BB in one of their showcase rooms where there were 2 large tower speakers on either side of a tv. The mid/upper bass was so overwhelming that I couldn't see why anyone would want to listen to one of these. Not sure why I put this here, but it triggered an old memory.

I had an MP3 on my work computer that was sent to me via IM. For months I only heard it on my computer's speakers. I finally burned it to a CD, and played it on my home system. It sounded completely different, but I preferred the newer fuller fidelity.